Fire towers and the eye of the beholder
This week’s debate at the Adirondack Park Agency meeting over the future of fire towers on St. Regis and Hurricane mountains was fascinating.
The two towers are widely beloved, a destination for generations of hikers. They’re also iconic fixtures on the landscape, and a tie to the Park’s history.
But many environmental activists see the presence of human structures as an erosion of a rare and fading experience in modern America: pure wildness.
The fascinating thing is that in the 1970s, lawmakers encoded some of those aesthetic ideals in legislaton.
The State Land Master Plan, which governs and shapes the Park, was created at roughly the same time as the Federal Wilderness Act.
Many of the same people and writings influenced the two documents.
The SLMP (“slump,” as it’s known) altered radically the way that state officials manage the Park.
Gone are the days when road-building, tree-cutting, and lean-to building are the priorities.
Instead, state law nudges the Park’s forest preserve land steadily toward a wilder state.
They set out that in wilderness areas, one of the ultimate goals is creating an experience where there is no permanent sign of people.
Another goal is to limit crowding and preserve solitude. Those are complicated and subjective ideas, incredibly hard to define or pin down.
But critics point out that sensibilities have changed over time. The aesthetic values embodied in the SLMP 40 years ago have shifted.
We have far more interest now in preserving historic and cultural artifacts. (When the SLMP was first created, there was no provision for protecting historic areas.)
And a lot of Americans have developed a very different eye for what “wildness” should look like.
Should float planes be allowed on a wild mountain lake, at least occasionally? Many folks say yes.
How about fire towers or lean-tos or the occasional cabin?
Critics of the Park Agency — and of the environmental community — point out that “non-comforming” structures are often allowed to remain, if they’re popular among hikers, greenies or state officials.
The two dams that create Lows Lake, for example. Or Marcy Dam. Or the smattering of cabins and other structures that the DEC maintains in the back-country.
Should those be torn out at the earliest possible moment, as the SLMP seems to require for the fire-towers?
If not, why not?
What’s certain is that this debate isn’t really about traditional environmental concerns.
No one wants to pollute or develop places like the summits of Hurricane and St. Regis.
But we do need a fresh discussion of what our shared vision of the Adirondack back-country should be.
To the APA’s credit, much of that conversation — full of nuance and some real intellectual risk-taking — was on display at the APA’s session on Thursday.
You can listen in on their debate here. And your comments are welcome below.
.png)
This headline in the PR is not really accurate: "APA allows fire towers to stay". Then I see that the Friends of the St. Regis tower site says the same thing and links to this PR story? I wouldn't open the champagne just yet. The towers very well may be torn down, in fact from the discussion yesterday I think this may be a likely outcome.
Also, Brian this is a very well written post. Here is my take. I would like to see these towers stay but I think they should be torn down. We need laws and regulations that are clear and concise, whether they are rules governing public land like here, or APA regulations governing private development. Just like I oppose these amorphous “jurisdictional inquiry” methods that are used in regard to private development, I oppose trying to “create” loopholes to save a few fire towers. This legislation could easily be written in a way to save these structures, it was not. If there is momentum to make the change than do it at a legislative level. But I think that what you write here gets at the heart of the matter. What are we really looking for? Either you want a “pure” wilderness or you don’t. Personally I don’t view any of this land as a “pure” wilderness. I like to see it as a wild area that once had a very rich history one that included (includes) people and the experiences that they had as they built their homes in and near the woods. I don’t see these places as wilderness. I see Lowes Lake as a place that once maybe floated logs in the spring, and now is shared by canoes and kayaks and floatplanes. I liked one comment made by a board member who asked something like “has the presence of these towers prevented anyone from coming to the St. Regis Canoe area?”, probably not. But all this aside, the law is clear and it and the folks that wrote it (as well as those that support it today), see a very different place than I do. This is a rare time where I side with comments made at the end by someone (I think?) from Protect! that was advocating for the removal of the towers. He said that this is a STATEWIDE decision, not a local decision. I wish it were a local decision but these laws are written specifically to make sure that locals have a very limited input. This may be for the very reason that “locals” might not share the same views as the folks that wrote the law. This may be the case with these towers. Given that I suggest that the law be followed and the towers be torn down, and yes if the vision is one of PURE wilderness than get rid of all the other non-conforming structures as well. For Lowes Lake; no float planes, no dam, no lake. The law is clear we are just afraid to follow it. Once we begin to follow these laws we will begin to see how badly we are in need of a change.
One more thing. Brian, you conclude your piece on the radio this morning by saying that the DEC says that the other 22 towers will be "preserved" since they are on land that is not designated as wilderness? The last part is true today. But the land that these towers sit on was also land that was not designated as wilderness in the past. To say that this will not change in the future ignores the past. Those towers are "safe" today but maybe not for long.
Personally I am not in favor of rigid adherence to the letter of the law. Laws are made to create or alleviate conditions. As Paul observes the Park is not pure wilderness and hasn't been for as long as it has been a park. Before that it was lumbered off mined and otherwise 'used' by man. To try to return to some primal notion of wilderness is to ignore history. Many areas of the Park are 'wild' and I have spent a fair amount of time in those wild spaces. The odd back country dam, ranger outpost, lean-to or fire tower does not diminish my sense of being in a wild place. If anything it adds a sense of its history as a wild place. To those who insist on strict enforcement of the 'non-conforming structure' prohibition I would advise that a little less rigidity would be beneficial to their equanimity.
I appreciate Paul's intelligent and logical response. Thank you.Alas, the towers are, indeed, an important part of the Adirondacks and what folks, both local and visitors enjoy hiking to and climbing for incredible views. Laws can and should be looked at, challenged, changed, reworked or kept intact as time passes and perceptions and understandings change and grow.Let's not do anything rash. There is no rush. Let's look at the law and the towers and then, after consideration and input from lots of folks, try to come to a decision that is best for all.
Sorry folks, clicked too quickly.Last anonymous post (12:36 p.m.) was me.
Personally, I think that the original SLMP should have been drafted to classify all Adirondack forest preserve land as Wild Forest land. Had they done that there would not be these issues now. When I am standing alone with a fly rod on the shore of say the St. Regis river on Wild Forest land it looks a lot more like Wilderness than when I am watching 10 canoes campers having a bomb fire on St. Regis pond in the "shadow" of the St. Regis fire tower. So my choices would be to either re-classify as Wild Forest or tear down the towers? We don't need to jump through all these hoops. Sunshine, maybe there is no rush but this has been under discussion for decades. There are other UMP's to get completed and this is taking way too much time and effort.
Paul, The huricane primitive area was clearly planned to become wilderness since it was classified in 1972. The ST regis canoe area has been a canoe area since 1972 and there is no plan for it to become wilderness. You said "But the land that these towers sit on was also land that was not designated as wilderness in the past".
Anon 2:04 I was just referring to the fact that at one time in the past both of these tracts were simply classified as Forest Preserve prior to this more complicated classification system being put in place.
Brian, I don't think your Low's Lake and Marcy dam comparison is accurate. Dams are listed as a conforming structure in wilderness areas per the SLuMP.
What is your point Paul? Should we also say a firetower outside of the park and on private land may not be preserved because the state may buy it, expand the park and classify it as wilderness
spnds_less_time_on _web_than_Paul,No. Maybe one inside the park on public land like this one:http://www.adk.org/Hikes/Poke-O-Moonshine.aspxRe-classification is happening.Although I guess your idea is also a possibility?
Leave them alone. They are a link to previous time and many of us have some real good memories of those towers and the people who stood watch in them.If we're going to make all this land "Wilderness" then shouldn't we simply outlaw people being on those lands? All those trails are "unnatural", lets stop using them too. Same for the camp areas, dams, etc. All this is is politically correct twisting of the law to suit the agenda of the environmentalists who see themselves as the only enlightened souls capable of using "the land" properly.
Firetowers seem like a minor issue compared to the larger concerns facing the environment in the park.Are there are any true environmental concerns with leaving them alone? I guess I don't understand the pro's and con's? I could be just uninformed though.